under Tinoco for thirty months is probably in a measure true of the nonrecognition by her Allies in the European War. Such non-recognition for any reason, however, cannot outweigh the evidence disclosed by this record before me as to the de facto character of Tinoco's government, according to the standard set by international law." This JOURNAL, Vol. 18, pp. 153-154. L. H. WOOLSEY. CURRENT NOTES THE ANNUAL MEETING OF THE AMERICAN SOCIETY OF INTERNATIONAL LAW The Twentieth Annual Meeting of the American Society of International Law was held in Washington, April 22-24, in accordance with the program previously announced. In his opening address on Thursday evening, the Honorable Charles Evans Hughes, President of the Society, made some very important observations on recent international events, particularly the Locarno Treaties and the consent of the United States Senate to the adherence of the United States to the Permanent Court of International Justice. He was followed by Mr. Clement L. Bouvé, of the District of Columbia Bar, who read an interesting paper on "The Confiscation of Alien Property," with especial reference to the sequestration of enemy property in the United States during the World War. Mr. Bouvé concluded that the United States has not repudiated its traditional policy and practice of regarding such property as exempt from confiscation in time of war. The sessions of Friday morning and afternoon, April 23rd, were designated as round table conferences and the discussions were of an informal character. "The Function and Scope of Codification in International Law" was the subject of discussion in the morning, and was opened by Professor James W. Garner of the University of Illinois, and Professor Joseph W. Bingham of Stanford University. The afternoon conference discussed "The Codification of International Law in Respect to Nationality." Mr. Richard W. Flournoy, Jr., of the Department of State, opened the discussion in respect to nationality by birth, and Mr. Henry B. Hazard, of the Bureau of Naturalization in respect of nationality by naturalization and the nationality of married women. The discussion of these subjects was concluded at the Saturday morning session. The debates at the round table conferences were lively and full of interest, and members in attendance considered them a most successful and desirable innovation. Dr. Antonio S. de Bustamante made a special trip from Havana to attend the meeting of the Society. He opened the Friday evening session with a comprehensive address, which he delivered in English, upon "The Progress of Codification of International Law under the Auspices of the Pan American Union." Dr. de Bustamante, who is a member of the Executive Committee of the American Institute of International Law, explained and commented upon the projects prepared by the Institute upon the request of the Pan American Union. The Society also had upon its program a member of the Committee of Experts of the League of Nations for the Progressive Codification of International Law, the Honorable George W. Wickersham, who followed with an address explaining the work of that committee, which he said was directed toward a conference of all civilized nations which recognize the obligations of international law. Mr. Wickersham urged the coöperation on the part of the foreign offices of all such governments in the preliminary work of the Committee of Experts. At the business meeting on Saturday morning, the Society reëlected the Honorary President, the President, the Honorary Vice-Presidents, and Vice-Presidents, filling the vacancy caused by the death of the Honorable George Gray on August 7, 1925, by electing the Honorable Frank B. Kellogg, Secretary of State, an Honorary Vice-President. The following members were elected to the new class of the Executive Council to serve until 1929: Edwin M. Borchard, Charles G. Fenwick, Richard W. Flournoy, Jr., James W. Garner, Arthur K. Kuhn, Frederick D. McKenney, Jesse S. Reeves and Ellery C. Stowell. The Executive Council met immediately upon the adjournment of the Society on Saturday morning, and elected Judge Edwin B. Parker Chairman of the Council, vice Rear Admiral W. L. Rodgers, whose term expired; and for the same reason replaced Professor William I. Hull and Judge Kathryn Sellers on the Executive Committee by Mr. Frederick D. McKenney and Professor Ellery C. Stowell. The Recording and Corresponding Secretaries, Treasurer, and Editorial Board of the AMERICAN JOURNAL OF INTERNATIONAL LAW were reëlected, with the addition of Professor Jesse S. Reeves as a member of the Board. The following committees were also appointed: Committee on Selection of Honorary Members: George Grafton Wilson, Chairman; James W. Garner, Manley O. Hudson, Charles Cheney Hyde, Harry Pratt Judson. Committee on Increase of Membership: Hollis R. Bailey, Chairman; Cephas D. Allin, Frank E. Hinckley, Pitman B. Potter. Committee on Annual Meeting: Ellery C. Stowell, Chairman; Cephas D. Allin, William C. Dennis, Manley O. Hudson, Charles Warren, W. W. Willoughby, Lester H. Woolsey. Committee for the Extension of International Law: Charles Cheney Hyde, Chairman; Manley O. Hudson, John H. Latané, Fred K. Nielsen, Edwin B. Parker, Pitman B. Potter, Henry W. Temple. Special Committee on Collaboration with League of Nations Committee for the Progressive Codification of International Law: Jesse S. Reeves, Chairman; Edwin M. Borchard, Philip Marshall Brown, C. K. Burdick, Edwin D. Dickinson, Charles G. Fenwick, James W. Garner, Manley O. Hudson, Philip C. Jessup, Arthur K. Kuhn, Pitman B. Potter, James Brown Scott, George Grafton Wilson, Quincy Wright. The Council received and approved a report from the Special Committee on Collaboration with the League of Nations Committee for the Progressive Codification of International Law, which recommended the transmission of five additional topics to the Committee of Experts at Geneva as suitable for consideration scientifically looking toward an authoritative statement of the law. The topics were: (1) State succession; (2) Criteria of de facto recognition of new states and new governments; (3) Canons of interpretation of treaties; (4) International servitudes; (5) The civil and commercial status of aliens, transient and resident. The report also contained a recommendation, which was likewise approved by the Council, that the questionnaires and reports issued by the Committee of Experts at Geneva, and the projects of codification drafted by the American Institute of International Law, be printed as special supplements to the AMERICAN JOURNAL OF INTERNATIONAL LAW. The questionnaires and reports of the Committee of Experts are printed as a special supplement to this number of the JOURNAL. The projects of the American Institute will be printed as a special supplement to the next number. On Friday afternoon, the members of the Society were received by the President of the United States and Mrs. Coolidge at the White House. The meeting closed with the usual dinner on Saturday evening, which was attended by over 200 guests and members. Mr. Hughes presided as toastmaster, and the speakers were the Vice-President of the United States, the German Ambassador, the Minister from Uruguay, and Professor Archibald C. Coolidge of Harvard University. The printed volume of the complete proceedings of the Society and the Executive Council, including the after-dinner speeches, has been published and is ready for distribution to subscribers. (Price $1.50.) ADHERENCE OF THE UNITED STATES TO THE PERMANENT COURT OF The resolution of the United States Senate, adopted on January 27, 1926, giving advice and consent to the adherence on the part of the United States to the Permanent Court of International Justice1 was communicated by the Secretary of State on March 2, 1926, to each of the governments signatories of the Protocol, with an inquiry as to whether they would accept the conditions, reservations and understandings contained in the resolution as a part and condition of the adherence of the United States to the Protocol and Statute. A copy of the resolution was transmitted at the same time to the Secretary General of the League of Nations, who had on August 15, 1921, sent the Department of State a certified copy of the Protocol of Signature. In his letter of March 2, 1926, to the Secretary General of the League of Nations, Secretary Kellogg stated that "the signature of the United States will not be affixed to the said Protocol until the Governments of the Powers 1 Printed in Supplement to the JOURNAL, Vol. 20, p. 73, April, 1926. signatory thereto shall have signified in writing to the Government of the United States their acceptance of the foregoing conditions, reservations and understandings."? The Secretary General communicated Secretary Kellogg's letter to the governments of the members of the League of Nations on March 17, 1926, and on the following day, at the Thirty-ninth Session of the Council of the League then in session at Geneva, Sir Austen Chamberlain reminded the Council of this letter, and read the following statement: The Senate resolution of January 27th, 1926, stipulates that the signature of the United States to the Protocol of December 16th, 1920, shall not be affixed until the Powers signatory to that Protocol shall have indicated by an exchange of notes their acceptance of the first five paragraphs of that resolution. The Protocol of 1920 is a multilateral instrument to which all the signatories are parties, and the special conditions on which the United States desire to accede to it should also be embodied in a multilateral instrument. They cannot appropriately be embodied in a series of separate exchanges of notes. The terms of some of the first five paragraphs of the Senate resolution affect in certain respects the rights of the States which have ratified the Protocol of December 16th, 1920, and it is not usual that rights established by an instrument which has been ratified should be varied by a mere exchange of notes. The terms of the fifth paragraph of the Senate resolution necessitate further examination before they could safely be accepted by the States which are parties to the Protocol of 1920. This paragraph is capable of bearing an interpretation which would hamper the work of the Council and prejudice the rights of members of the League, but it is not clear that it was intended to bear any such meaning. The correct interpretation of this paragraph of the resolution should be the subject of discussion and agreement with the United States Government. It should not be difficult to frame a new agreement giving satisfaction to the wishes of the United States Government, if an opportunity could be obtained for discussing with a representative of that government the various questions raised by the terms of the Senate resolution. To any such new agreement, the states which have signed the Protocol of December 16th, 1920, and the United States Government would be parties. I suggest that the most convenient course would be to propose to all the governments which have received from the United States Government a copy of the Senate resolution that a reply should be made indicating the difficulty of proceeding by way of a mere exchange of notes and the need of a general agreement. An invitation might also be addressed by the Council to all these governments and to the Government of the United States to appoint a delegation to participate in the discussions as proposed above and in the framing of a new agreement at a meeting to be held here on September 1st of the current year.3 * For the text of this letter, see League of Nations Official Journal, April, 1926, pp. 628-629. 3 League of Nations Official Journal, April, 1926, p. 536. |